search this blog

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Over at Nature at this LINK. Why is the presence of steppe admixture in Mycenaeans important? And why does it matter if the Minoans already had a lot of ancestry from the Caucasus or surrounds? Because Mycenaeans were Indo-Europeans and Minoans weren't. I'm still reading the paper and will update this entry regularly over the next few days. Below is the abstract and, in my opinion, a key quote. Emphasis is mine.

The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean [1, 2], and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus [3] and Iran [4, 5]. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia [6, 7, 8], introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe [1, 6, 9] or Armenia [4, 9]. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations.
...
The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. Suppose that there are two models (Simulated1, Simulated2) and we wish to examine whether either of them is a better description of a population of interest (in this case, Mycenaeans). We test f4(Simulated1, Simulated2; Mycenaean, Chimp), which directly determines whether the observed Mycenaeans shares more alleles with one or the other of the two models. When we apply this intuition to the best models for the Mycenaeans (Extended Data Fig. 6), we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3 (Table S2.28). However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event – if, indeed, the Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA model represents the true history.

Lazaridis, Mittnik et al., Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans, Nature, Published online 02 August 2017, doi:10.1038/nature23310
Update 03/08/2017: This is my own Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the Minoan and Mycenaean samples, which are freely available at the Reich Lab website here. The Armenian angle for the eastern admixture in Mycenaeans looks forced. The trajectory of this admixture obviously runs from Northern or Eastern Europe to the Minoans. If it did arrive from Armenia, then realistically only via a heavily steppe-admixed population. Right click and open in a new tab to enlarge:

Update 05/08/2017: Much like Lazaridis et al., I ran a series to qpAdm analyses to find the best mixture model for the Mycenaeans. However, just to see what would happen, unlike Lazaridis et al., I didn't group any of the archaeological populations into larger clusters based on their genetic affinities. The three models below stood out from the rest in terms of their statistical fits.

So it's essentially the same outcome as the one obtained by Lazaridis et al., because Sintashta and Srubnaya are part of their Steppe_MLBA cluster, while Corded Ware is part of their Europe_LNBA cluster, and it's these clusters that, along with Minoan_Lasithi, provided their most successful mixture models for the Mycenaeans. But it's nice to see Sintashta at the top of my results, because it fits so well with the long postulated archaeological links between Sintashta and the Mycenaeans (for instance, see here).
By the way, here's what I said back in May when the Mathieson et al. 2017 preprint came out (see here). So things are falling into place rather nicely.

The same paper also includes the following individual from present-day Bulgaria dated to the start of the Late Bronze Age (LBA), which is roughly when the Mycenaeans appeared nearby in what is now Greece:
Bulgaria_MLBA I2163: Y-hg R1a1a1b2 mt-hg U5a2 1750-1625 calBCE
This guy is the most Yamnaya-like of all of the Balkan samples in Mathieson et al. 2017, and, as far as I can see based on his overall genome-wide results, probably indistinguishable from the contemporaneous Srubnaya people of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. He also belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a-Z93, which is a marker typical of Srubnaya and other closely related steppe groups such as Andronovo, Potapovka and Sintashta. So there's very little doubt that he's either a migrant or a recent descendant of migrants to the Balkans from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

437 comments:

It's just modern Y-DNA. Hardly relevant because of, for instance, the LBA collapse, a couple of dark ages, you name it.

Ancient DNA has already pinpointed a Sintashta-like sample with Z93 in the Bronze Age southern Balkans, and I bet that he'll be a good fit for the steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans. That's all that counts.

Having been a coauthor of the paper, we found 0.6% Z93 in mainland Greece and 1% Z93 in Crete. A bit underwhelming and less Z93 in the mainland. My guess is that these are relic Persians/Anatolians. A better bet would be R1b-Z2103 for an I-E/Greek connection".

But where are all these R-L23 in Greece? They are above all R-L23-CTS9219 "Balkan cluster" (my discovery) which isn't older than 900 years in the Balkans and the oldest subclades are all in Italy or Western Europe. Also the unique R-L389 (Diamantikos) has YCAII=18-22, which is 1 of the 4 haplotypes present in Italy etc etc.

if Mycenanean do have steppe and, in turn, EHG(which I'm 90% sure of), we can both agree it's not much. Throw in a bit of drift to all of this and you're in for results that downplay the extent of what transpire

Please have a look at Extended figure 2 D once again. Mycenaeans share more drift with Iran_Hotu & EHG, when compared with Minoans, but they do not do so with European_LNBA, Steppe_MLBA or Steppe_EMBA. If the EHG-like ancestry admixed into the Mycenaeans, where did it come from ? If it took the route via Europe, the ancient bronze age populations from Europe which show EHG admixture should be the probable candidates for this source of admixture. In such a case, the Mycenaeans should indeed show more drift with these steppe-admixed Bronze Age Europeans or steppe groups. If EHG shares more drift with Mycenaeans, why not Bronze Age Europeans ? After all, in the modelling that the Lazaridis team does, Mycenaeans are 80 % Minoans + 20 % European_LNBA. This indicates that if this model was correct, Mycenaeans should show substantial level of drift sharing compared to Minoans.

In fact Argiedude named that "Albanian cluster" because found firstly amongst Albanians, but after I found it in all the Balkans and named it "Balkan cluster", and it is known with this name. That it is linked with Albanians is true, in fact in Italy the only known case (Ciulla) is amongst an Arbereshe from Hora i-Arbereshevet (Piana degli Albanesi, Palermo, Sicily), and made me think that there hasn't been a huge migration from Balkans to Italy as it was thought lacking Italy that haplotype (but we have upstream haplotypes as Bilancia and perhaps the Rizzo I found on SMGF).The question is to understand the origin of this haplotype, being young un the Balkans (not more than 900 years as to YFull), and the oldest haplotypes are in Italy and Western Europe. An origin linked to Romans or to peoples who inhabited Romania after the Roman conquest with the medieval expansion to the Balkans of the Arumenians and linked people shouldn't be excluded, but it should be confirmed with aDNA and other.

The last line should read This indicates that if this model was correct, Mycenaeans should show substantial level of drift sharing with European_LNBA, compared to Minoans

Now,

Besides, look at Crete_Armenoi again. Try as you might, but you can't explain it all away with Armenia_MLBA. Clear Bronze Age European affinities there and huge difference w/Minoan samples. Now, if Crete was affected thus, what would make anyone think these steppe-carries would have skipped over Greece like grasshoppers?

You should have read what the authors themselves say regarding this Armenoi sample We acknowledge the possibility that there was geographical structure in the Bronze Age Cretan population (the Armenoi sample comes from northwestern Crete; Fig. 1a), or that population change had occurred between the time of the samples from Moni Odigitria and Lasithi and the time of this individual, however, the lack of high quality data does not allow us to test these hypotheses further.

So get a high quality sample and then we can take this further.

And yet both CHG and Armenia show more of this pseudo-EHG ancestry than Iran_n despite the latter being positioned in a more SC-wardly direction.

That is a facile argument. Iran_N is towards the South from CHG/Armenian samples. However, the early samples from the North such as CHG & Iran_Hotu, do have higher EHG affinity in comparison to Iran_N. So it suggests that a EHG/ANE affinity existed in the Eurasian region south of the Caucasus and east of Anatolia, that was higher than that found in more Southern groups like Iran_N from quite an early period. This is similar to how Balochis in South Asia show low level of EHG affinity compared to the Pathans or Kalash.

Regardless, Armenian_Chl still shows a slightly higher affinity to EHG than normal. A reasonable explanation is that such an affinity is a result of population admixture from a more eastern source, somewhere in South Central Asia. This is not an unreasonable argument. The South Central Asian region shows substantially higher level of ANE affinity as compared to the Iranian plateau.

Besides, read the archaeology book I suggested. Read that particular chapter I have mentioned. This is a clear and unmistakable trail from Central Asia into the Caucasus. For example, there is evidence of Lapis Lazuli in 4th millenium BC Maykop culture, whose only known source was in Afghanistan. There is evidence of cotton, which can only come from South Asia. There is also evidence of lost-wax casting whose earliest evidence comes from Mehrgarh in South Asia.

Is it just co-incidence then that at that very moment of time, we have a South Asian mtDNA M52 in one of the Maykop site burials, and ydna L1a in Armenia_Chl ?

In the same way, L's origins probably lie somewhere in Iran/Caucasus and its high frequency in Greater India attests to a Neolithic expansion from Iran.

Where is the proof that ydna L could have come from Iran/Caucasus into South Asia during the Neolithic ? Mere idle speculation cannot win the argument.

Re/ Sindhis---They are the "Sardinians of South Asia" when it comes to (iran-related)Neolithic ancestry and not particularly ASI-rich.

Not really. That title better suits the Balochis and the Brahuis, not the Sindhis. Besides, even the Kalash< Pashtuns & Tajiks show higher affinity to Iran_N than the Sindhis. You should be aware of this.

Combine this with some western Basal-rich component like LBK/Anatolia and voila----Armenians

Your strategy seems to be, look at each evidence in isolation and then dismiss it. Never bother to look at the cumulative evidence. Please look at the evidences, including the archaeological, that I have shown and then refute it.

So far, all available genetic and archaeological evidence points to South Asia being a genetic SINK, not source.

Based on what ? Your own Eurocentric worldview or anything more concrete ?

The whole argument of steppe being a PIE homeland stems from this Eurocentric prejudice. All that the scholars have bothered to do is show archaeological evidence of movement from the steppe into Europe during the Bronze Age. That for them was sufficient enough to believe that steppe indeed was the PIE homeland. They never bothered to investigate the archaeological link from the steppe into Asia, did they ?

Most of the arguments, even now are based on little more than contacts between the steppe people and Central Asians, with clear Central Asian influence even showing up in Sintashta. This clear two-way contact is argued to support a one-way movement of language, culture and religion from the steppe into Central Asia. You find that very scientific ?

It's been mentioned before by Ric Hern earlier in this thread, but the Multi Cordoned Ware Culture is a great candidate for the predecessor of the Mycenaeans and other Bronze Age steppe migrants in Greece and the Balkans.

According to the Russian sources, it was heavily influenced and later pushed out by R1a carrying Srubna peoples, themselves influenced by Sintashta. The migrants are said to have traveled into the Balkans. All of these cultures used the chariots derived from Sintashta.

This process happened around 2000-1800 BCE, ending roughly 200 years before we find the Mycenaeans. I'm tempted to label the intervening time as the "Proto-Greek period" If you want an aDNA smoking gun for the steppe source into the Mycenaeans, that's where I'd look.

"@Gioiello,R1b-Y5586 is in Bulgaria and is 4400 ybp according to YFull and is under CTS9219, so your dates don't agree with YFULL"

My dates come from YFull, even though I consider them underestimated. R1b1a2-L23-CTS9219-Y5586 is another subclade with another history, but it doesn't seem that there is any sample in Greece for what I know.

"This process happened around 2000-1800 BCE, ending roughly 200 years before we find the Mycenaeans. I'm tempted to label the intervening time as the "Proto-Greek period" If you want an aDNA smoking gun for the steppe source into the Mycenaeans, that's where I'd look.""

That's not what they suggest. he MNK- Abashevo-Andronovo were a continuum of Iranic speaking cultures.The chariots etc were probably mediated to a consolidating Mycenean elite probably by individuals such as Z93 -man found in the Bulgarian steppe; but moreso via the Carpathian basin; and some of the Greek- Indo-Iranian correspondences pointed out by Kuzmina

@Gioiello,"You are an Harvardian. You cannot be so ingenue. Cecidere manus!"

So sorry Gioiello, but your judgment is askew again! I'm not from Harvard--never ever studied there. I'm totally from Cornell and Stanford. I got my math PhD from Cornell and my MD from Stanford and taught there for 29 years. Now emeritus.

@ Roy King"So sorry Gioiello, but your judgment is askew again! I'm not from Harvard--never ever studied there. I'm totally from Cornell and Stanford. I got my math PhD from Cornell and my MD from Stanford and taught there for 29 years. Now emeritus".

I apologize.You are a Conellian and a Stanfordian. You cannot be so ingenue. Cecidere manus!

Have you considered that the R1a-Z93 MLBA Bulgarian I2163 could be Thracian? It was found in Haskovo province bordering on Greek and Turkish Thrace. Also the sole modern Mainland Greek sample from our study is derived for Z2125.Thracian appears to be a satem language like Indo-Aryan, so that would fit as well. Greece in antiquity culled many slaves from Thrace and Phrygia.

@David - "Ancient DNA has already pinpointed a Sintashta-like sample with Z93 in the Bronze Age southern Balkans, and I bet that he'll be a good fit for the steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans. That's all that counts."

I'd bet good money that you'll get the best fit from modelling Mycenaeans as having received steppe input from two sources, and that the second source is more directly related to Yamnaya.

@Roy - Greek has some shared features with Iranian languages though too does it not? I don't think IE would strictly fit a tree model anyways, and particularly not so for Greek. I don't see any reason why it couldn't have partial ancestry from a Satemized language.

Throughout this summer you've been arguing Balkan Chalcolithic *outliers* are the source of the Steppe in LNBA Europe. Your 'new' theory that the Myceanean's Steppe is from the Balkan Chalcolithic *outliers* is from the same retarded ideas. That's why I pointed out that the two biggest Steppe migrations into Europe(R1a-M417, R1b-P312) most definitely originated in the Steppe not the Balkans.

I guess you've decided to retreat from your previous stance which argued all Steppe ancestry in Europe is from the Balkan Chalcolithic and are now arguing just arguing some Steppe ancestry is from the Balkan Chalcolithic.

"Incorrect. They migrated throughout Europe and settled certain regions, but did not "cover" it.. "

Ok, mr. perfectionists they didn't cover everything but nonetheless they took over a huge chunk of Europe within a couple hundred years. That you can't deny. And you also can't deny they are the main source of Steppe ancestry in modern Europe(all of R1b P312 rich western Europe, all of R1a M417 rich Eastern Europe). Thus, the premise of your retarded theory about Balkan Chalcolithic outliers being the source of Steppe ancestry in Europe is DEAD WRONG.

"The Late Neolithic cultures in France which existed until 2200BC were probably I & G. We have Unetice culture which is I2. We have later Bronze Age and Iron Age groups from Poland which are all I2, I1 and G. Where did they all come from ? Idaho ?"

Just because their Y DNA isn't R1 doesn't mean they likely come from the Balkan Chalcolithic. This is so typical of you. When the evidence doesn't absolutely prove a premise of the pro-Steppe crowd you parade every alternative theory you can think of and act as if the data suggests it's correct.

The I1-rich population in Iron age Poland were Goths. They were recent arrivals from Scandinavia. That's why they had so much I1. Btw, there was a recent Polish study which found most Wielbark people had I1 not I2 so I'm right about them being mostly I1.

They aren't representative of Bronze age Polish which could have been R1a rich. We already know the Baltic BA was R1a and mostly Corded Ware. Also, the only BA genome from East Germany belongs to R1a Z282.

The famous Iron age peoples of Eastern Europe; Germans, Sycthians, Huns, etc. were recent immigrants and don't represent the native peoples. Corded Ware's R1a didn't only remain in a tiny isolated proto-Slavic community for 3,000 years and then expanded out of no where.

"I guess you've decided to retreat from your previous stance which argued all Steppe ancestry in Europe is from the Balkan Chalcolithic and are now arguing just arguing some Steppe ancestry is from the Balkan Chalcolithic."

LOL . Rubbish. I was merely pointing out that *it just so happens, at present* that the individual with the earliest actual steppe ancestry (both CHG/ EHG) we have found to date is from Varna, Balkans. I never said that means steppe comes from the Balkans, or it's 'pseudo-steppe'. I have always thought CWC come from steppe (actually i tend to believe forest-steppe), and have toyed for BB between Yamnaya and CWC, as most people probaby have. As for Balkans, the situation is far more complex and far more layered. Believe me, i know, directly. IF you think i have stated anything contrarily, provide the link to my statement, otherwise you're just slinging false accusations based on your own inability to read.

2) Just because their Y DNA isn't R1 doesn't mean they likely come from the Balkan Chalcolithic. This is so typical of you."

Err no I didnt state they all came from the Balkans, although the Unetice might have come from Hungary What I was pointing out, - but you again failed to understand, is that a raft of local MNE groups from Poland, France, Germany, Scandinavia continued to co-exist with steppe arrivals. This is what I wrote """The Late Neolithic cultures in France which existed until 2200BC were probably I & G. We have Unetice culture which is I2. We have later Bronze Age and Iron Age groups from Poland which are all I2, I1 and G. Where did they all come from ? .."

where do you see Balkans there ?

3) "When the evidence doesn't absolutely prove a premise of the pro-Steppe crowd you parade every alternative theory you can think of and act as if the data suggests it's correct. "

My critique is on your thinking. Don't lump every other person with you. There are many intelligent people here who favour the steppe theory as a whole, but realise that everything was a lot more nuanced than the "derpty" version some try to pass off.

4) "They were recent arrivals from Scandinavia. That's why they had so much I1. Btw, there was a recent Polish study which found most Wielbark people had I1 not I2 so I'm right about them being mostly I1. "

hey had I2 and G as well. I even just told you it did, but you continue to bury your head in the sand.

4) "They aren't representative of Bronze age Polish which could have been R1a rich"

Oh OK. All those 20 or so individuals specifically excavated and tested by local Polish specialists all just happen to be "non-representative'. Spot of bad luck, old boy.

5) "Corded Ware's R1a didn't only remain in a tiny isolated proto-Slavic community for 3,000 years and then expanded out of no where."

They weren't tiny nor isolated, but that's essentially what happened. The R1a in modern Slavs, Balkans and even Germans is not from Bronze Age Lausitz, nor the EBA Polish sample (both of which are nowadays extinct or rare lineages), but from a specific subset of Balto-Slavic lineages which expanded from west Ukraine and SE Poland. within -Europe migrations and demographic changes continued to happened. History did not just end in 2500 BC.They've been R1a-specialists on here outlining these factoids before, and you can check this all for yourself, so you've got no excuse for being an absolute turkey.

6) "are you man enough to respond?"Your virility does cower me, but i deemed it more a waste of my time.

7) "okay mr. perfectionists"Yes, some of us want all the details and specifics, if you think this is a problem then you're in this hobby for a wrong reason. When we delve into complexities and some inconsistencies, it doesn't mean we deny the overall patterns, or are making personal insults upon you.

This study is wonderful, but hardly surprising. Anyone familiar with the way Mycenaeans depicted themselves could have guessed as much; they are invariably black-haired and look indistinguishable from Minoans. That's not to even speak of J. Lawrence Angel's exhaustive study on Aegean remains from the Neolithic to modern times, affirming Greek continuity (but not purity) from a metric perspective (which is all they had to work with in those days). Having genetic evidence only confirms what bloggers like Dienekes have been saying for years: Greeks were and still are predominantly Eastern Mediterranean. Proto-Greeks heading south into the Balkans might have been indistinguishable from Yamnaya for all we know or care, but the civilized Greeks of Homer and onward were not.

The real surprise of the study is the northern pull of modern Greeks. For years racist loons like HFK Guenther and more recently Arthur Kemp argued that ancient Greece lost its Nordic character to mixing with Near Eastern slaves, Turks, and even sub-Saharans, resulting in modern Greeks. Of course no one but idiots gave credence to such nonsense, but to find out out that most modern Greeks are actually significantly more northern than Mycenaeans is absolutely hilarious. What a twist!

But this is also where Dienekes et al might have been wrong: Slavs very well could have had a significant impact on Greece per Fallmerayer (who undoubtedly overstated the case). I guess we won't know how much until we get some classical age samples. Perhaps the putative Dorian invasion was responsible for most of this pull, but I would put my money on Slavs. Time will tell.

As far as elite male samples go, I think the best ye steppe enthusiasts can realistically hope for at this point is something in the range of modern northern Greeks (Epirotes and Macedonians), since Crete Armenoi with 30% steppe is placed near the middle of the modern Greek samples on Dave's PCA. Give it as much as 50% and you still have something very Balkan-like. Hardly a Nordic superman. And as for the Mycenaeans in general, I suspect some of you were hoping for something in between the steppe and modern Greeks (something like me: a half-Greek, half-northern European), but Santa had other ideas this year.

Well actually I have to take my statement above back. If the Mycenaens were from the Steppes, I would expect more EHG, and if it was an Elite Dominance I would expect R lineages. But instead only J lineages.

So there are two possibilities.A: Either the Proto Mycenaens didn't come from the SteppesB: there is some J in the Steppe cultures which haven't been found yet.

Of course Davidski will delete this post, but, about the paper on Mycenaeans of Lazaridis and how and why it may be biased, imagine if what I thought about him so long were true, that his Y is a J2 of Venetian origin, and what did Dienekes answer Davidski about his failure in the autosome tests and the closing of his blog? That he published on peer reviews now.

"The most sensible model, therefore, is of modelling Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian_N + Armenian_Chl/MLBA, as this model also eliminates the need to posit multiple admixtures."

A thorough sample of Anatolia would reveal Anatolian_N is itself a fair fraction Iran_N (and Levantine/WHG), as is Armenian. CHG is essentially Iran + EHG. So you are just using semantics to beat around the bush. Whether you like it or not, it's pretty clear, both the Steppe and Mycenaean were Iranized peoples.

Both the Mycenaeans and Minoans show significant CHG/Iran_Chalcolithic-RELATED ancestry from Anatolia, in fact overall most similar to the Tepecik farmers from Central Anatolia, not any Iranians.

But only the Mycenaeans show significant steppe ancestry, and they are the first attested Indo-European speakers in history, while Minoans don't show any steppe ancestry, and no one knows what type of language they spoke.

Pull your head out of your ass and accept reality. Your insane mental gymnastics won't make Iran the Indo-European homeland.